Mediaboss Marketing

By preserving sites that have been central to the black experience, Obama helped revitalize our civic religion.

Barack Obama speaking at the Smithsonians National Museum of African American History and Culture on September 24, 2016. (Reuters / Joshua Roberts)

Among its other accomplishments, the presidency of Barack Obamayou do remember it?featured an unmistakable expansion of public appreciation for African-American history. This was especially true as his time remaining in the White House dwindled away: From the opening of the Smithsonians Museum of African-American History and Cultureto the designation of a site in South Carolina as the nations first national park devoted to Reconstruction, the Obama presidency ended with considerable emphasis on how the nation conceives of African-American history in public spaces. In many ways, and despite whatever uncertainties lie ahead, Obamas attempts to memorialize more of the African-American experience enhanced the meaning of what it means to be an American.

The idea that the United States has a civil religion, an argument first put forward by sociologist Robert Bellah in 1967, suggests that all Americans possess certain national touchstones for collective memory. We have a shared understanding of the importance of certain events, such as the battles of the American Revolution and the Civil War. This is crafted by public memoryhistory not necessarily as it is written by historians, but more generally, the ways in which the public remembers the past in popular culture and media. During Obamas presidency, Americas civil religion expanded to include moments from the civil-rights struggle and other protest movements, all of which enhanced and enlarged the definition of who counts as an American. In a rapidly diversifying country, the importance of this achievement cannot be underestimated.

From his early entry into public discourse, which can be traced to the publication of his memoir, Dreams From My Father, Obama has written and spoken extensively of the importance of African-American historyboth to himself and to the nation. Indeed, Obama wrote in that book about the importance writers such as James Baldwin, Ralph Ellison, and Malcolm X had on the development of his own identity. As president, Obama continued his engagement with the black historical and literary tradition by using the power of the presidency to create landmarks to the African-American experience, thereby forever shaping public memory and Americas civic religion.

His second inaugural address, in 2013, for example, argued for the need to memorialize moments in African-American history as part of a larger national narrative. His famous line about Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall was an attempt to broaden the idea of who is remembered in American memory. In both the realm of presidential rhetoric and physical spaces, Obama worked time and again to broaden the ideas of what is memorialized, of who counts as an American.

His participation at the commemoration of the 50thanniversary of the Selma voting-rights march is another example of how the president used the power of the presidency to memorialize a national event. It would be easy to assume that anyone occupying the White House in 2015 would have participated in the Selma march. However, the symbolism of the first African-American president speaking to the power of the ballotespecially during a time of renewed voter suppression across the nationcould not be missed. In his speech, the president compared the site of Selma to other important places in American history: As John [Lewis] noted, there are places and moments in America where this nations destiny has been decided. Many are sites of warConcord and Lexington, Appomattox. Gettysburg. Others are sites that symbolize the daring of Americas characterIndependence Hall and Seneca Falls, Kitty Hawk and Cape Canaveral.

Obama positioned the civil-rights movement within the highest pantheon of moments in Americas history.

By comparing Selma to other important battles and turning-points in American history, Obama positioned the civil-rights movement within the highest pantheon of moments in Americas political and cultural history. Presidents, through public addresses and what they choose to memorialize, determine what future generations will also consider to be significant in the national story. Just as importantly, they choose the reasons why such moments deserve memorialization. This also matters. Think about President Ronald Reagans reluctance to support a holiday commemorating the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr. When Reagan was finally compelled to sign the bill into law in 1983after pressure from both civil-rights activists and Congresshe repackaged King as a color-blind, centrist hero. Even though Kings birthday is now a federal holiday, Americans are still debating the legacy of Dr. King, thanks to Reagans attempt to appropriate him for the conservative cause.

Remember, too, who Obama memorialized in his Selma addressnot just Martin Luther King Jr. but also local activists like Amelia Boynton and C.T. Vivian, thus tying together the local and national civil-rights campaign as is not often done in important, nationally-televised speeches that help shape public memory. In that same address, Obama even spoke to how the activists were seen at that time: Back then, they were called Communists, or half-breeds, or outside agitators, sexual and moral degenerates, and worse. His purpose was to remind Americans of the dangers of labeling anyone who dissents from the status quo as being so far outside the mainstream as to be alien to the American experience. (It was also, significantly, a rhetorical shot at Reagans attempt to redefine Kings legacy; one of the former presidents reasons for originally refusing to support the MLK holiday was his view that King had been a Communist stooge.)

The stakes are higher now than ever. Get The Nation in your inbox.

Obamas efforts to reshape American memory only accelerated in his final year in office. The opening of the National Museum of African-American History and Culture in September 2016 was another occasion for Obama to memorialize African-American history as part of a larger American story of struggle and progress. The museum was created in 2003, long before Obama became president or even emerged on the national stage. But the opportunity of the its actual opening lent itself to Obamas mission of commemorating African-American history as fundamental to the broader American story. As he argued during his speech, too often, we ignored or forgot the stories of millions upon millions of others, who built this nation just as surely, whose humble eloquence, whose calloused hands, whose steady drive helped to create cities, erect industries, build the arsenals of democracy.

These were encouraging and affirming words not just for African Americans, but for those historians of the American experience who have argued over the last 50 years for a shift towards looking at the lives and aspirations of downtrodden Americans, and not just those great men in power. Obamas own speeches and rhetorical gestures, therefore, speak to a larger shift in how American public memory is being recorded, stored, and used.

Obamas own speeches and rhetorical gestures speak to a shift in American public memory.

Obamas decision to grant national-monument status to a Reconstruction historic site in Beaufort, South Carolina, was another example of the presidents attempt to broaden what is memorialized in the United States. By establishing this national monument, the president corrected a previously grievous oversight by the national governmentuntil then, there had been no national monument dedicated to the Reconstruction period. This is not a surprise. The Reconstruction era, long depicted through a racist and simplistic historical lens as a disaster in American history, has undergone a re-evaluation in the last fifty years among mainstream historians (and far longer on the left, going back to W.E.B. Du Boiss Black Reconstruction, published in 1935). But for far too long, Americans appeared unwilling to commemorate Reconstruction as an important moment in American history. This was due to the eras complicated racial and sectional politics, offering both an inspiring story of newly freed African Americans becoming citizens and the depressing end to that experiment only a decade after their freedom. Reconstruction has always resisted the easy American historical narrative of steady and inevitable progress.

Along with providing for the creation of a Reconstruction historic site, Obamas proclamation last month also designated historic sites for the Birmingham civil-rights campaign of the early 1960s, along with ones that tell the story of the Freedom Riders of 1961. Both these sites commemorate not just the victories of the civil-rights movement but some of the worst violence from that time period targeted against civil-rights activists. Again, Obamas designations show that he is concerned not only with remembering American history as one of constant progress, but also one of struggle andin the case of Reconstructionwith the potential for devastating reversals.

Memory of the past matters. If Americans have a collective memory of the past that promotes activism and political participation, it has the potential to push modern and future activists to also imagine a better nationjust as freedmen and women did during Reconstruction, or activists in Selma and Birmingham a century later.

The fight to reshape American memory of the past is one that must be joined by common citizens, politicians, and academics. The battle over the creation of a Reconstruction memorial site was led by historians themselvesmost notably Greg Downs, Kate Masur, and Eric Foner. Local activists have often fought for new ways to commemorate civil-rights struggles. Everyone has a role to play in continuing Obamas efforts to expand the public memory and revitalize the civic religion into one that represents all Americans. We need it now as much as ever.

Read the original post:
Barack Obama Radically Expanded Our Appreciation of African-American History - The Nation.

Planning for the final assault on Raqqa, the capital of the Islamic States caliphate, had been grinding on for more than seven months. There had been dozens of meetings of President Barack Obamas top national security team, scores of draft battle plans and hundreds of hours of anguished, late-night debates.

There were no good options, but Obamas top foreign policy advisers were convinced that they had finally settled on an approach that could work arming Kurdish fighters in northern Syria, current and former U.S. officials said. There was just one problem: The Obama team had deliberated for so long that there was little time left to pull the trigger. Trumps advisers had also sent word that they wanted to make the decision.

So on Jan.17, just three days before the transfer of power, Obama directed his national security adviser to hand over to the Trump team a paper detailing the plan to arm the Kurds, including talking points that President Trump could use to explain the move to Turkeys president, who officials knew would be furious. The Turks viewed the Kurdish fighters as terrorists and their No.1 enemy.

Obama hoped that his last-minute preparations would clear the way for Trump to authorize a swift assault on the Islamic States most important stronghold, where U.S. intelligence officials say militants are plotting attacks outside Syria.

Instead of running with the plan, Trumps national security team deemed it wholly insufficient and swiftly tossed it.

To the incoming Trump administration, Obamas approach was so incremental and risk-averse that it was almost certain to fail. They provided the information, but we found huge gaps in it, said a senior Trump administration official who reviewed the document. It was poor staff work.

The Obama White House viewed its Syria plans as the product of years of experience in a region where every move carries unintended and potentially catastrophic consequences. Those who steered the Obama administrations Syria policy insisted that the new White House did not understand the complexity of the issue, but soon would.

The troubled handoff of one of the United States most vexing national security problems shows how far the pendulum has swung between two presidents who in many ways are opposites. Obama sweated the smallest details of U.S. military and intelligence operations, often to the point of inaction.

Trump has made it clear that he prefers to go with his gut and has promised a swift and brutal campaign that will utterly destroy the Islamic State. In meetings with his national security team, he has signaled his desire to give Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, whom he regularly refers to by the nickname Mad Dog, a free hand in doing whatever it takes to fight terrorism.

[In deadly Yemen raid, a lesson for Trumps national security team]

It is up to Mattis and the rest of Trumps national security team to translate the presidents campaign-trail pronouncements into policy. Trumps more aggressive approach could speed the destruction of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, but it also could lead to an increase in civilian deaths, fueling anger toward the United States.

Trump and his top advisers also could decide to increase coordination with Russia and even Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to seize Raqqa. Or he could ultimately conclude, as Obama did, that arming the Kurds represents the best of several bad options.

The policy dilemmas that Obama and his team spent more than seven months deliberating will be decided over the course of the next 30 days in a review led by Mattis and the Pentagon. Trump has directed his defense secretary to bring him multiple options and to ignore the restrictions on troop numbers and civilian casualties that were put in place by Obama.

The message to the Pentagon was to widen the aperture, said the senior administration official, who, like other current and former officials, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive planning. Give us all of your options.

Target: Raqqa

The policy dilemma facing Trump began with a decision made by the Obama administration in a moment of desperation in 2014.

Islamic State fighters had just seized huge swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria. Obama decided to intervene militarily but ruled out the use of American ground forces on the front lines.

The Pentagon needed to find local partners in a hurry, and the Syrian Kurds stepped forward. The budding U.S. battlefield alliance with the Kurds carried big strategic risks. The Kurdish fighters who volunteered to help the Americans had ties to the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, which the Turkish and U.S. governments considered a terrorist group.

[The uneasy mix of forces battling the Islamic State]

In contrast to Obama, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan did not see the Islamic State as his countrys No.1 threat. In private meetings with senior U.S. officials in 2014, Erdogan said the Kurds were his top concern and that removing Assad ranked second, according to U.S. and Turkish officials.

By the fall of 2016, after two years of tension between Obama and Erdogan because of different priorities, a U.S.-backed offensive using Kurdish forces to recapture Raqqa was finally within sight, and Army Gen. Joseph Votel, the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, asked for authorization to arm them for a push into the city.

The proposal divided the Obama White House. Then-Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter backed the plan, but others worried that it would deepen the rift with Ankara.

Among the biggest skeptics was Susan E. Rice, Obamas national security adviser. When she asked Marine Corps Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whether an immediate decision was needed, the general said he was still evaluating whether Turkey was serious about an offer to provide its own forces to take Raqqa instead of the Kurds.

For two years inside the Pentagon, Turkeys promises of sending rebels and later its own troops were viewed with deep skepticism and derisively dubbed Erdogans ghosts or the unicorn army, according to current and former defense officials. Carter and other defense officials worried that Dunfords response gave the White House another reason to delay a decision.

By late 2016, Dunford had concluded that the Turks would not produce the forces to retake Raqqa. With less than three weeks left in the Obama administration, Dunford and Carter submitted a formal request to arm the Kurds for the assault with armored vehicles, antitank weapons, Russian-made machine guns and mine-clearing equipment.

The Pentagon pushed for an immediate decision, warning that if the Kurds did not receive the equipment by mid-February, their offensive on Raqqa would stall. A decision not to arm the Kurds could delay the Raqqa operation by up to a year, U.S. officials warned.

The Pentagon also was alarmed by increasingly dire warnings from senior counterterrorism officials about terrorist attacks being planned inside the city.

[Tracing the path of four terrorists sent to Europe by the Islamic State]

On Jan.10, just 10 days before Trumps inauguration, Obamas top advisers huddled in the White House Situation Room to weigh the Kurdish proposal, which would be the last major national security decision of the outgoing administration.

Carter argued that the Kurds understood that they would have to turn Raqqa over to local Arab forces as soon as the Islamic State was defeated.

Samantha Power, the outgoing U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and the U.S. ambassador in Ankara, along with others, warned that moving forward with the plan would further damage relations with Turkey. It also would put the United States in the unacceptable position of supporting allies of a terrorist group that was carrying out mass-casualty attacks on a NATO member, they said.

Everyone in the Situation Room that day agreed on the need to consult with the Trump team. There was no point taking such a consequential step if the new president might reverse it.

At the end of the meeting, Rice thanked everyone for their hard work and led a champagne toast.

Shortly afterward, Rice spoke to retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, her counterpart in the incoming administration, about the proposal.

Dont approve it, Flynn responded, according to two former officials briefed on the exchange. Well make the decision.

On Jan.17, Obama chaired his final National Security Council meeting and directed his team to leave the decision on arming the Kurds to the Trump administration. In one of his last acts as commander in chief, he approved the deployment of two or three Apache attack helicopters to Syria and authorized the Pentagon to provide more support to Turkish forces fighting for the Syrian town of al-Bab.

Rice prepared briefing papers for Flynn, emphasizing the importance of moving quickly to arm the Kurds.

Obama told a small group of aides that he would personally discuss the importance of the matter with Trump on the morning of the inauguration, possibly in the limousine on the way to the Capitol for the swearing-in ceremony.

Welcome to the NBA, Obama said he planned to tell his successor, according to officials present.

A new plan

The recommendation was dead on arrival at the Trump White House.

The Obama plan required U.S. forces to train the Kurds in using the new equipment and fighting in a densely packed city, but it lacked details about how many U.S. troops would be required and where the training would take place, the Trump administration official said. Trump officials said they were dismayed that there was no provision for coordinating operations with Russia and no clear political strategy for mollifying the Turks.

Nor were there contingency plans if the Kurdish attack stalled, the senior Trump administration official said.

What bothered us most of all was that there was no PlanB, the Trump official said.

To the Trump team, it seemed that Obama administration officials had delayed authorizing the plan because they knew it was inadequate and did not want to be held responsible, the official said.

A senior Obama administration official said the criticism was unfounded and a sign of the new White Houses intelligence insecurity. In addition to the short memo that Rice gave Flynn, the outgoing administration left a thick package of supplemental material, the Obama official said.

Most of the shortcomings outlined by the Trump team were obvious to Obamas advisers, he added. In fact, the senior Obama administration official said, arming the Kurds was Obamas PlanB, after it became clear that PlanA using Turkish forces to take Raqqa would not be feasible.

It is up Mattis and Dunford to sort through Syrias many complexities and come up with a new plan. At the end of Obamas term, Dunford emerged as one of the most passionate supporters of arming the Kurds, the senior Obama administration official said. Aides declined to describe Mattiss thinking on the option. Trump has promised to give Dunford and Mattis a free hand, which could lead them right back to some variation of the Obama plan.

Hes a businessman, the senior Trump official said of the new president. His attitude is that I am hiring really good people to make these decisions.

Excerpt from:
Obama's White House worked for months on a plan to seize Raqqa. Trump's team took a brief look and decided not to ... - Washington Post

It took George W. Bush and Barack Obama a while to warm up to each other. They had many differencesin party, in age, in temperament, in style. Obama had risen to the presidency in part by peddling a harsh critique of Bushs administration. The relationship grew gradually over time. The two men joked at the unveiling of Bushs White House portrait in 2012. Bush invited Obama to the opening of his presidential library. By the time Michelle Obama and the former president embraced at the opening of the National Museum of African American History, stories emerged about the odd friendship between the couples.

The Feedback Loop of Doom for Democratic Norms

That growing warmth was fostered in part by a detente between the two men. While Obama fired broadsides against Bush on the campaign trail, Bush mostly shrugged it off. He instructed Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to keep Obama briefed on responses to the economic crisis, Jonathan Alter reported, with Paulson deeming Obama far more informed about the economy than John McCain. During the transition process, Bush invited Obama and his national-security appointees to war games.

After Obamas inauguration, Bush quietly left the scene and mostly avoided talking about politics. He repeatedly stressed the importance of allowing Obama to govern without the interference of an ex-president. The silence was so striking that when reports surfaced in April 2015, seven years into Obamas presidency, that Bush had privately criticized Obamas ISIS policy, it was headline news. Just as notably, former Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer disputed the reports. He never mentioned Obama. He gave direct, blunt answers to the hottest topics of the day involving politics of the Middle East, Fleischer told CNN.

Obama, in turn, responded to Bushs withdrawal using the same methodhe seldom mentioned Bushs name. As conservatives did not fail to point out, whenever Obama was confronted with his administrations struggles to get the economy rolling, he complained that he had been handed an extremely poor economy. But he usually avoided saying just who he had inherited that economy from. It was a small courtesy for the former president, and a token of Obamas gratitude for Bushs graciousness. Former Obama Chief of Staff Bill Daley told The Washington Post that Obama didnt mention Bush much in private, either, though some of his staffers grumbled about the former president. (Many of Bushs aides still found Obamas criticisms of their old boss unfair and distasteful.)

The public truce between Obama and Bush was notable because of the harsh tone of the 2008 campaign, but it followed the pattern set by previous commanders in chief: The outgoing president would stay out of the way and the incoming president would avoid attacking him. Despite Barack Obamas attempts to build a rapport with Donald Trump during the presidential transition, and despite Trumps public gratitude, the tradition seems moribund now.

Obama had already declared his intention to deviate from tradition if there are issues that have less to do with the specifics of some legislative proposal or battle, but go to core questions about our values and our ideals. He has already broken his silence once, with a spokesman issuing a statement on protests last weekend over Trumps immigration executive order. President Obama is heartened by the level of engagement taking place in communities around the country, the statement said, calling the demonstrations exactly what we expect to see when American values are at stake.

But if Obama is willing to fire a broadside at his successor,Trumps administration has shown its willingness to attack Obama in terms that are equally harsh, or even harsher. In a statement on Wednesday about Iran conducting a ballistic-missile test, National Security Adviser Michael Flynn spent nearly as much ink blasting Obamas policies as he did the Iranians:

The Obama Administration failed to respond adequately to Tehran's malign actionsincluding weapons transfers, support for terrorism, and other violations of international norms. The Trump Administration condemns such actions by Iran that undermine security, prosperity, and stability throughout and beyond the Middle East and place American lives at risk. President Trump has severely criticized the various agreements reached between Iran and the Obama Administration, as well as the United Nationsas being weak and ineffective.

On Thursday, Press Secretary Sean Spicer also opened up on Obama. Spicer was being quizzed about a phone call between Trump and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, which reportedly ended acrimoniously in part due to differences over an agreement by the Obama administration to accept 1,250 refugees from Australia.

The president is unbelievably disappointed in the previous administrations deal that was made and how poorly it was crafted, and the threat to national security it put the United States on, Spicer said, a statement remarkable not only for its directness but for the accusation that Obama had endangered American security.

A showdown between presidents is unpredictable because its so rare. But Obama might feel emboldened by his public standing. He has a hefty advantage in approval ratingshe left office with a 59 percent approval rate, according to Gallup, against Trumps current 45 percent. (Incidentally, he also had the upper hand when he entered office, with two-thirds of Americans approving of his performance against just 34 percent approval for Bush, which might have encouraged Bush to stay mum.)

Nonetheless, these are likely only the opening skirmishes of a longer campaign of sniping between Obama and Trump. Trumps agenda is full of just the kinds of items that Obama said would force him to speak up. The tone of Flynns attack on Obama startled White House reporters, who asked Spicer on Wednesday whether to expect more like that. Yes, came the answer.

I think in areas where there's going to be a sharp difference, in particular national security, in contrasting the policies that this president is seeking to make the country safer, stronger, more prosperous, he's going to draw those distinctions and contrast out, Spicer said. And so he's going to continue to make sure that the American people know that some of these deals and things that were left by the previous administration, that he wants to make very clear what his position is and his opposition to them. And the action and the notice that he put Iran on today is something that is important, because I think the American people voted on change.

One change they voted on, whether they realized it or not, was the end of the tradition of comity between former and current presidents.

See more here:
The Obama-Trump Truce Is Already Over - The Atlantic

New York Times

Trump Embraces Pillars of Obama's Foreign Policy New York Times WASHINGTON President Trump, after promising a radical break with the foreign policy of Barack Obama, is embracing some key pillars of the former administration's strategy, including warning Israel to curb settlement construction, demanding that ... and more »

More here:
Trump Embraces Pillars of Obama's Foreign Policy - New York Times

US President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama make their way to board Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, DC on August 6, 2016. MANDEL NGANAFP/Getty Images

Barack Obama is living up to his promise of taking Michelle on a "very nice vacation ."

After the inauguration , the former First Couple took a trip to Palm Springs , but then traded in the desert sun for the warm Caribbean waters. He and Michelle traveled to the British Virgin Islands specifically Necker Island, which is owned by billionaire Richard Branson and are embracing all aspects of beach bum lifestyle, according to Elle .

The Obamas' new laid-back vibes becomes most apparent in their sartorial choices. The former president has always been an avid proponent of wearing baseball caps, but he took that enthusiasm one step further while on vacation. A Twitter video shows Barack and Michelle walking along the beach looking just like any other casual beach-goers. The former First Lady looks stylish in short shorts, a fedora and braids. But it's Barack who is the real surprise as he sports a backwards hat.

If he's wearing a backwards hat now, what does this mean about dad jeans ?

Read the rest here:
Barack Obama's Now Mainly Focusing on Wearing This Casual Backwards Hat - TIME